I think the Grateful Dead is probably too low. I don't think there's any artist who scores higher in terms of the impact of live performances on their own career--they were touring as superstars during periods when they had little success from a recording standpoint, and they were never that big as recording artists. And their impact on the touring business was also huge, with the entire "jam band" scene being directly attributable to them. Their reputation was high and while they don't score all that well in consistency, I think that they still ought to at least be in the top ten.

beaverteeth92 wrote:

I'd probably have to agree. The Grateful Dead should be extremely high, considering they invented the entire concept of the jam band, which was highly influential on the development of live performance.

A lot of the artists above the Dead had their live performances result in equal or greater impact on their careers, just sometimes in different ways. Presley's show is what created the furor with him in his early days and what led to his going to RCA and becoming the focale point of the entire anti-rock movement of 1956. Springsteen was barred from releasing music following Born To Run yet actually increased his following through touring alone, so that when he returned he was a bigger star right off the bat than when he had left in 1975. Ike & Tina Turner had uneven recording careers for a variety of labels, but were one of the most successful live acts for more than a decade, which got them in the HOF. James Brown became a superstar because of his early touring and broke through to mainstream America because of his live show in 1962. Bo Diddley was never a huge hitmaker, especially in the 50's, yet he routinely closed multi-artist shows which had far bigger names appearing on it because he was so good live and his place in rock history vaulted way up as a result of that noteriety.

Yeah, the Dead's live show had just as much impact on their stature as stars over the years, considering their generally weak studio output, and they definitely get a lot of credit for it here, but the gap isn't as much as some are seeming to suggest.

As for the jam band concept, it didn't start with the Dead at all - Diddley started that in the 50's. He'd close shows, do part of one song and then jam for twenty minutes, riffing on his guitar off-the-cuff. It's no surprise that the first group later recognized AS a jam band, which just beat the Dead to it in SF, was Quicksilver Messenger Service and the songs they turned into lengthy jams were Diddley songs. So while the Dead are the most renown for this, they weren't first and they can't get credit for something others did before them.

I think the Grateful Dead is probably too low. I don't think there's any artist who scores higher in terms of the impact of live performances on their own career--they were touring as superstars during periods when they had little success from a recording standpoint, and they were never that big as recording artists. And their impact on the touring business was also huge, with the entire "jam band" scene being directly attributable to them. Their reputation was high and while they don't score all that well in consistency, I think that they still ought to at least be in the top ten.

beaverteeth92 wrote:

I'd probably have to agree. The Grateful Dead should be extremely high, considering they invented the entire concept of the jam band, which was highly influential on the development of live performance.

A lot of the artists above the Dead had their live performances result in equal or greater impact on their careers, just sometimes in different ways. Presley's show is what created the furor with him in his early days and what led to his going to RCA and becoming the focale point of the entire anti-rock movement of 1956. Springsteen was barred from releasing music following Born To Run yet actually increased his following through touring alone, so that when he returned he was a bigger star right off the bat than when he had left in 1975. Ike & Tina Turner had uneven recording careers for a variety of labels, but were one of the most successful live acts for more than a decade, which got them in the HOF. James Brown became a superstar because of his early touring and broke through to mainstream America because of his live show in 1962. Bo Diddley was never a huge hitmaker, especially in the 50's, yet he routinely closed multi-artist shows which had far bigger names appearing on it because he was so good live and his place in rock history vaulted way up as a result of that noteriety.

Yeah, the Dead's live show had just as much impact on their stature as stars over the years, considering their generally weak studio output, and they definitely get a lot of credit for it here, but the gap isn't as much as some are seeming to suggest.

As for the jam band concept, it didn't start with the Dead at all - Diddley started that in the 50's. He'd close shows, do part of one song and then jam for twenty minutes, riffing on his guitar off-the-cuff. It's no surprise that the first group later recognized AS a jam band, which just beat the Dead to it in SF, was Quicksilver Messenger Service and the songs they turned into lengthy jams were Diddley songs. So while the Dead are the most renown for this, they weren't first and they can't get credit for something others did before them.

I would also put The Who up a notch or two, but I understand the calls are tough at the top.

I can understand James Brown at #1, but I do think The Who deserve at least #2. Especially after watching Bruce Springsteen attempting to windmill strum at the Super Bowl.

Yes, because The Who have aged so gracefully. You try comparing pre-Moon's death shows to shows without he or Entwistle, and your head may explode. It's depressing watching them perform live now. Daltrey's voice is just painful. Ditto for Ian Gillan of Deep Purple. They both had incredible voices, but it's horrible to watch how badly their voices aged with them.

Yes, because The Who have aged so gracefully. You try comparing pre-Moon's death shows to shows without he or Entwistle, and your head may explode.

I've seen a fair few. Have you? Here's a review in Connecticut's The Day from December of 2006:

The Day wrote:

Mohegan -- Based on the Who's two-hour performance Friday in the Mohegan Sun Arena, and that whole "hope I die before I get old" thing, here's an observation:

If you're in your teens or even your 20s, and you have a rock band, beware. Say you're rehearsing in your garage and the door blows open and 61-year-old Pete Townshend and 62-year-old Roger Daltrey walk in, borrow a guitar and a microphone, and break into "Won't Get Fooled Again" or the "Tommy" medley they encored with Friday.

Your jaw will thud onto the floor, you'll look at your spiral notebook with your stupid lyrics and predictable and puerile chord structures, you will crawl into a fetal position - and you will damned well think twice about whether you can be a rock star.

They're 16th... that's of ALL-TIME, as in of all of the tens of thousands of artists who played rock 'n' roll over 62 years. You can't, by definition, be under-recognized for finishing that high in an all-time list.

Secondly, how have I under-recognized anything with them? They're in the R&R HOF based largely on their live performances, their recording career was spotty and their touring more than made up for that, which means they get a ton of credit for how their live act impacted their career. Why do you think they finished so high - did you think I felt they desrved far lower based on the criteria but was feeling charitable?

What people tried harping on was simply wrong - they didn't invent the jam band concept and I refuse to give credit to them for it in primary influence simply because people have been misled to think they did. Other than that I didn't really comment on them, but by their placement they certainly haven't been slighted at all. Artists above them have greater peaks that's all.

Here's a more mediocre review towards more recent performances. I just tend to think they died with Entwistle. It's Hard was good, and they still managed to put on pretty good shows with Entwistle (like Live at the Royal Albert Hall), but I just lost all interest in their recent work one he died.

Here's a more mediocre review towards more recent performances. I just tend to think they died with Entwistle. It's Hard was good, and they still managed to put on pretty good shows with Entwistle (like Live at the Royal Albert Hall), but I just lost all interest in their recent work one he died.

I think the band has aged quite gracefully, though with some warts.

See, i felt a bit let down by the half-time show because of the format more than the quality of the Who. You mash up the "greatest hits" and you get weird transitions and a bit of confusion.

Other than that, while the ox and moonie are surely missed, the quality of performance by the band has remained quite good. Pete is playing with as much fervor as ever. When I saw the band twice in 2006/2007 i was stunned by his mobility, both on the stage and on the guitar.

Also, You thought "Its Hard" was good? That pretty much the only album i never put on. I'm just wondering why?

Here's a more mediocre review towards more recent performances. I just tend to think they died with Entwistle. It's Hard was good, and they still managed to put on pretty good shows with Entwistle (like Live at the Royal Albert Hall), but I just lost all interest in their recent work one he died.

So you haven't seen a single show since the passing of Entwistle, eh? They've continued to get superlative reviews since his passing. Check out that Glastonbury review I posted above. That's from 2007. I'd call that a rave. Their Isle of Wight 2004 review, also in the Telegraph but from a different writer, was similarly glowing. Unfortunately, it appears to no longer be on the website.

Anyway, you were talking like you're intimately familiar with their post-Moon and Entwistle prowess, but it now seems like all you really know is their twelve minutes at the Super Bowl. And your review of that mini-set wasn't even bad. Also, for the record, the only things actually live during that set were Townshend's vocals and electric guitar. Everything else was canned. If you want to fairly assess how the latter-day Who compare to their sixties and seventies heyday, you should probably attend an actual concert.

.... as a comparison based on the criteria and not any reflection on Zeppelin`s position of 14 or Cream at 33, Deep Purple at 69 does not completely match when DP to my knowledge has always been the more consistently renowned live act especially during the peak of both other groups and runs almost along the same timeline as Zep ... and that isn`t a knock on Zep or Cream ... as a couple notes of trivia the 8 month old Purple in 1968 was removed from Cream`s farewell tour for supposed showing up the headliners as the band Yes also did a month or so later in the UK ..... and then in 1969 Purple became the first rock band to perform its own original live material with a full symphony orchestra and then was commissioned by the BBC to do another again in 1970 (Gemini Suite) and also headlined Montreux in 1969..... the first concerto was also performed live with an orchestra at the Hollywood Bowl in 1970 ... and Made in Japan which was released in 1972/73 and certified in every country around the world that had awards and charted Top 10 from Australia to Japan to Chile to Mexico to South Africa to Spain and beyond .... some might also recall Purple was the headliner at the California Jam in 1974 which (based on paid tickets) was the highest attended festival of its kind up till then and broadcast live by ABC ... and in Europe at this time the media named the riot filled concert tours of DP - Purplemania etc etc at the same time the band toured all around the world ... even continuing to fill stadiums with 90,000 to 100,000 with Tommy Bolin on guitar in places like indonesia in late 1975 and so on ... Take care

CRITERIA: Based upon reputation within music circles at their peak, consistancy at maintaining that high performance level over time, the impact of their live performances on their own career and influence on the evolution of live performances as a whole.

Well the biggest problem that i see for Zeppelin is consistency. They were notorious for having some really really bad nights, especially as you move past 1970. Also, i really don't see what the contributed to live performance that hadn't already been added by the other big arena bands of the time, specifically The Stones and the Who. In effect IMO they didn't really bring that much to the table that wasn't already there.

I'm in full agreement with nathan in questioning why Zep is ahead of GD. I'd move zeppelin down a few notches.

DigitalDreamDoor Forum is one part of a music and movie list website whose owner has given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...